Retrieve all open carts with their cart-line IDs, menu-item IDs, and subtotals to review items before checkout. Excludes submitted orders.
List open carts, their cart-line IDs, menu-item IDs and subtotal. No submitted orders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The text adds only the 'open carts only' scope constraint and the field set returned; no pagination, ordering, or volume behavior is disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, with the scope and returned fields front-loaded and the exclusion stated last. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no input parameters and no output schema, the description usefully carries the return-value information (cart-line IDs, menu-item IDs, subtotal) and the open-cart scope. It would be fully complete if it noted ordering or volume characteristics, but nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Baseline for a no-argument tool is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Uses a specific verb (list) and resource (open carts) and enumerates the payload fields (cart-line IDs, menu-item IDs, subtotal). It also scopes away submitted orders, which contrasts with the order-listing siblings, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'No submitted orders' implies this is the pre-checkout view rather than the order-history view, giving an implicit when-to-use cue. However, it never states the condition under which an agent should prefer this over get_cart, get_checkout_preview, or list_consumer_orders, so routing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.